User talk:Lancer1289
Welcome to My Talk Page. If you don't find an issue that you have brought up with me in the past, then please check my archives because I have moved a lot of it to there. However I ask you to 'NOT' edit there, just drop me a new message to bring up the discussion again. To leave me a message, please click on the "Leave message" button above, rather than just editing the whole page. That way I know what to look for. Thanks. Please do leave me a new message unless there is a conversation that is already in progress that you wish to comment on. If you have a question that has no bearing on a conversation that is under a heading, then please don't edit there. Just leave me a new message. For example, if you see a section called Help, but your question doesn't relate to what the conversation was about, then 'PLEASE' don't edit in that section, just leave me a new message. The comments will be moved to the end and I'll create a new section for it. Missing Title #1 I don't stop by the wiki often, but I always seem to find a thread where multiple people harrass you for upholding site policy. I just felt inclined to let you know that I appreciate your dedication to following the rules(even though I sometimes break the language policy in a fit of nerd rage). Never let a bunch of a**wipes get you down for doing what is right. --CommanderCousland 05:26, October 16, 2011 (UTC) :Thank you. Lancer1289 14:33, October 16, 2011 (UTC) Interesting I recently discovered that I was banned for some time and I ensure you it wasn't me who did that "stuff", you can even chek with "Arby 'n' The Chief wiki" as I sent a message to XtranormalGeek. I don't care if you think I'm a c#@% all i ask is that you look at the evidence yourself and make a new opinion and I hope this "Incident" can be forgoten and we can forge a new friendship, what do you say? Also, you might notice that we are undergoing a few changes and I am now an admin of that site. I hope you can see reason. --Blazingswords 02:56, October 17, 2011 (UTC) :So what is the evidence that I'm supposed to be looking at here, because I'm seeing a distinct lack of it? If it's the message that you were gone for two and a half weeks from that date, then your ban was put in place at least a full day before that. So far I haven't seen any evidence that you weren't the one doing it as it was under your account so unless you have other evidence to present, then the facts remain, and this is not an incident that I will forget anytime soon. The fact remain that the edits that were made were from your account, and with again no evidence that says it wasn't you. The messages and the pictures broke so many rules at once, including one that a user is still suffering a year ban from, that a two-week ban was IMO generous. :This is not something I can forget and will need ''extremely strong evidence that can conclusively say that you didn't do it, which I haven't seen. So unless you have new evidence that you haven't presented, I'm forced to deal with what is at hand, and so far, there's nothing that I'm seeing that doesn’t begin to convince me that you didn't do it. :I'm more than capable of reading and reanalyzing evidence, but when there is no evidence presented, then I can't do anything about it. That may be harsh, but that's the facts that are being presented. There's a lot of evidence against you and so far there hasn't been very much to eliminate it. Lancer1289 03:29, October 17, 2011 (UTC) ::Blazingswords, the fact remains, and it's abundantly clear, that your account was used to post pornographic images on this wiki. There is absolutely no evidence that it wasn't you who did this. None. A ban was a no-brainer. SpartHawg948 06:37, October 17, 2011 (UTC) Collector's Edition dog It totally is a FENRIS. I don't see how that's either irrelevant or speculation. --Lucius Voltaic 19:57, October 18, 2011 (UTC) :So where's your proof that it is a FERNIS mech apart from visual comparison. Lancer1289 20:01, October 18, 2011 (UTC) ::1. I said it appeared to be a FENRIS mech. 2. Visual comparison is relied on all the time. Take, for a random example, Captain Bailey. He's listed as human. Does he ever say "By the way, I'm human"? He could be a midget Brobdingnagian or something, but there's not really reasonable doubt there. --Lucius Voltaic 20:53, October 18, 2011 (UTC) :::Incorrect and straight visual comparisons are not allowed on this site. Your trivia is not valid because you are making a visual comparison and that isn't allowed. It even states that visual comparisons are not valid trivia without some backup. Quote, "Note that straight visual comparisons in things that really are otherwise unrelated are not enough to justify trivia". You are making a pure visual comparison, and you don't have backup. FERNIS mechs are security drones, yet this is a robot companion. So either get some further evidence or it will not be mentioned. :::Also your analogy isn't valid because your saying that just because he doesn't say he's human, he isn't. How is that logic? In fact that is about the most flawed analogy that I've seen a person use to argue their point. If we did that, then we have to say that anyone who doesn't mention their species or say what they are, isn't that species. So let's start with the Councilors, Anderson, and Udina and go from there. We could even expand that to say that anyone in the games who doesn't explicitly mention they are a member of a species, then we can't put them into that species. So we can’t say that Wasea is an asari, we can’t say that Joker is human, we can’t say Niftu is volus, and I could go on for some time. Where in the world is the logic in that? It's nothing but pure illogical and one of the most ridiculous things I've seen anyone use to argue their point. The analogy has a fatal flaw that you are trying to exploit, but the thing is it fatally weakens your argument. Lancer1289 21:09, October 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::If the rules say that, then that's fine, but you're completely misunderstanding my analogy. I'm not saying that Bailey isn't a human. I'm just saying that even though we don't have explicit confirmation, we can still assume that he is. --Lucius Voltaic 21:14, October 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::Basically, your refutation of what you thought my analogy was is the point I was making in the first place: that we can use visual comparisons to a degree. --Lucius Voltaic 21:15, October 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::And again your point is that we can't assume anything, which is a completely flawed statement. Anything that isn't explicit, we can't mention, and that is some of the most ridiculous thinking that I've ever seen. We aren't using a visual comparison to say he's human, he obviously a human, based on a lot off evidence, and not just a visual comparison. Your analogy would say that he isn't because he doesn't say it. That is what your analogy is saying, not we make visual comparisons all the time. There are other things we use to classify things, but your way of thinking would make it so strict that we can't say anything unless it's so explicit that it has large neon signs around it. That is a flawed analogy, not what you say it is. Again, the analogy doesn’t help your case, it fatally weakens it. Lancer1289 21:28, October 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::You still don't get it. I KNOW that's absurd. That's my WHOLE POINT. I am AGREEING that it would be ridiculous to say that we don't know he's a human. I am pointing out that we DO know he's human DESPITE the fact that no one actually says it. Have I made myself clear yet? --Lucius Voltaic 21:33, October 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::And you clearly glossed over some of my sentences in my last comment. Lancer1289 21:38, October 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Okay, what did I gloss over? Let me emphasize that my point is exactly not, as you said, "that we can't assume anything". --Lucius Voltaic 22:09, October 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::Mainly the sentence "There are other things we use to classify things, but your way of thinking would make it so strict that we can't say anything unless it's so explicit that it has large neon signs around it." However, the point you are/were making so you could get what you wanted in the article. We can't use visual comparisons as it is a violation of the MoS for things like that. Assumptions are backed up here and you are arguing to get your thing in, yet are trying to say something else. Lancer1289 22:36, October 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::I'm not actually trying to get my edit in any more, I'm just trying to get you to understand what I was saying. You mention your sentence about how my way of thinking was strict. But you're the one who took out my edit--does it make sense that I would be stricter than you? I was pointing out that such a strict interpretation of the rules would not make sense--NOT promoting it. --Lucius Voltaic 22:47, October 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::Except this isn't an interpretation of the rules, it is the rules. We don't allow visual comparisons on this site, and that was your only justification for the inclusion. Because there is no other reason, then it isn't valid because of the rule. It's not my interpretation, it's the rule. Plan and simple. We've removed trivia about Omega and High Charity I don't know how many times now and the only thing that was used there to justify the trivia was a visual comparison. You need evidence to back up a visual comparison and you don't have it. Lancer1289 23:28, October 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::We're not arguing about the FENRIS thing anymore! I gave up on that hours ago! How can I make this any clearer? ALL I AM TRYING TO DO IS EXPLAIN MY ARGUMENT. The argument which I am not still trying to win with, in case you still don't understand that. :::::::FACT. It is not explicitly said that Bailey is human. :::::::FACT. It is, however, reasonable to assume that Bailey is human. :::::::CONCLUSION. It is sometimes reasonable to assume something without it being explicitly said. :::::::OPINION. It is reasonable in the dog's case. ::::::That argument, right there, that is all I was saying. I am not still saying that it is reasonable in the dog's case. That is what I was saying at the beginning of the discussion. Also, when you say it "isn't an interpretation of the rules, it is the rules" that's not correct. The strict interpretation which I was referring to is the interpretation, which I do not agree with, and have never agreed with, that would have Bailey not listed as human. NO ONE IS PROMOTING THAT INTERPRETATION. NO ONE HAS EVER, EVER, EVER, BEEN PROMOTING THAT INTERPRETATION. --Lucius Voltaic 02:02, October 19, 2011 (UTC) :::Is it the same size as the FENRIS? Does it move the same way? Does it make the same sounds? Why don't we wait till we actually SEE it.-- 21:12, October 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::See my reasons above, and someone else's reasons below, for why it can't go in. Lancer1289 21:28, October 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::I think he meant that, to use/refer to Lucius's analogy, we can tell that Bailey is a human because he is the same size as a standard male human, his anatomical motions are the same as a human, and he sounds like a human, so he is a human. THe wiki contributor is just saying that we should wait for it to be released before we confirm what it is. Well, that's how I interpreted it at least. --CommanderCousland 21:54, October 18, 2011 (UTC) :::(Edit conflict) I'd be against mentioning that it's a FENRIS (whether or not it actually is; of course it's extremely likely that the Robotic Dog is a FENRIS, but BioWare could always throw a curve ball and call it a FENRIS 1XC or another name) mainly because I don't feel such a statement belongs in the article. The article for the CE versions of ME games are pretty much word-for-word from what info BioWare has given us. The contents of those CE's are explained in-depth in separate articles (where separate articles are necessary) and linked to in the CE articles. Once we learn more about the Robotic Dog (such as if "Robotic Dog" is its final name in ME3), we'll probably make an article for it. That article would be the best place for info about the RD. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:17, October 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::I guess we'll wait and see. Lancer1289 21:28, October 18, 2011 (UTC) Missing Title #2 I was the one who edited Admiral Koris Vas Qwib Qwib, Admiral Xen vas Moreh. Why did you delete them, i was trying to put a link of a video but you delted them. :First I only removed the Kasumi Goto eidt, I didn’t remove the edits you are talking about. It was actually Commdor who removed your edits, and I don't know how you could get our user names confused. Second, it was removed because it was unsourced material and without a source, it isn't a valid addition and will be removed. However, if the video is the same one that Commdor is thinking of, then that isn't confirmation, rather it is speculation. No dialogue is used and therefore we can't confirm who they are. We need evidence, and the video, if it is the one I'm thinking, and that Commdor was thinking of, is not proof. Third, we don't allow videos up be uploaded to the wiki. If you want a further explanation of why those two edits were removed, then ask the person who actually removed them as I'm guessing here. I can only speak for one edit, and it’s neither one of the two you incorrectly told me I undid. Lancer1289 19:18, October 20, 2011 (UTC) Just to let you know There is a vandel by a user named Blehh vandalizing the DA wiki with porn. You may want to keep an eye out in case he/she comes hereSer Derek of Highever 18:39, October 21, 2011 (UTC)